According to Wired, "The Senate is likely to vote within days on a measure that would undo net-neutrality rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010, even though they've yet to go into effect... The House passed a similar measure, but Obama has threatened to veto it. It was not immediately clear whether the Senate has the necessary votes for passage."
If you care about net neutrality, now is a good time to head on over to Save The Internet and get involved in this issue.

But really, sort of telling how you retreat to such defence. Of, may I remind you, a major influencing force of the last few decades (so on a time scales where the world very much still lives with the consequences, very actively feels the results)

One which, say, also has its share of coup d'etat events, is at least one of the biggest supporters of such (beware, if you're a small country which wants to pursue its own goals & you're not aligned with some other bully; well, and if you're a country of "lesser" people ...~Caucasians are of more concern to the world, it seems)
Or even of dubiously legal wars. And with among the most active intelligence agencies, also within Europe (pdf warning http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML... ). Or allied - again, within still very relevant historical background - with (often installed) regimes keeping themselves in power via violence, also extreme; systematically supporting such as long as they are on "the good side"

I suppose this is going to work as well as in The Netherlands. After Thom's exhortations what happened? The most disadvantaged started to pay more. Obviously it worked well for the well-connected, knowledgeable and high earning yuppies.

I suppose this is going to work as well as in The Netherlands. After Thom's exhortations what happened? The most disadvantaged started to pay more. Obviously it worked well for the well-connected, knowledgeable and high earning yuppies.

I hear you. Our legislators often botch things even worse when they pass laws to "fix" something. In this case, though, the legislators who are in the pocket of business interests want the Congress not to act and protect net neutrality. In other words, the lack of action in this case guarantees the worst-case outcome. So a simple law to protect net neutrality is needed.

People have a variety of options wrt ISPs: cable, DSL, satellite, private networks, etc. If there are significant complaints by customers -- which there currently aren't -- then people will vote with their feet. Or an alternative provider will spring up. The market will punish bad conduct. And if a provider holds a monopoly -- meaning there are no alternatives -- then its conduct is subject to regulation, anyway; so, either way, net neutrality is a solution seeking a problem.

In the US, many people have only a couple options for internet connection. I live in a major US city and I have all of 3 options. Many people in smaller urban areas and rural areas have only 1 or 2 options. "Let the market decide" doesn't work when people don't have options.

In the US, many people have only a couple options for internet connection. I live in a major US city and I have all of 3 options. Many people in smaller urban areas and rural areas have only 1 or 2 options. "Let the market decide" doesn't work when people don't have options.

You do realize that ISPs will simply stop servicing smaller urban and rural areas -- or reduce the quality of service -- if their revenue stream dries up, right?